Talk:Second Life Railroad/SLRR History

I haven't forgotten about this...

but, pardon for my delayed response, because my attention has been focused on critical deadlines here at Linden Lab. I will say this:

• Talk pages can be an awkward place to have a conversation. As suggested, maybe some of you need to discuss this in realtime.
• I lack extensive firsthand experience with the disputed SLRR (and related) events, so I don't have a strong stance on matters as it relates to official Linden policy, compared to something in my domain expertise. So I forwarded this to Michael Linden of the LDPW. To clarify, I'm unable to meaningfully mediate beyond broad wiki guidelines, but will make sure those are followed, or offenders' wiki edit privileges will be revoked.
• If there continues to still be conflict over what belongs in a single page and consensus can't be reached, I recommend that new pages with their own perspective should be created, all linked reciprocally so that visitors can read them and make up their own minds. That way, each of the different groups involved in this can present their side of the story without feeling trampled. But "edit warring" must stop.

- on 2010-09-07 @ 9:19 AM Pacific

Awesomness!-- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Torley. This is a process, not a crisis. When all this talk fades away we will be left with a great article. Jer Straaf 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you Torley. We have taken your advice and setup our own groups wiki pages. Simply because we want to give SL Residents a choice. Our extended way of writing does not mix with the ideas and views that some others hold on the SLRR Pages. We have linked the pages to each other though so everyone should be able to find everything they are looking for. I do hope that stays on the pages. --Stryker J 15:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving page

I have moved the SLRR History from 2010 and beyond to this new page. 2005 to 2009 can still be found at Second_Life_Railroad/SLRR_History. The old page gotten larger than the 32K maximum. --Stryker J 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To Stryker, this is not a good idea, the history must remain on a single page.
It is long because it was not written succinctly, some text was copied/pasted in it's entirety and not edited down for this wiki topic.
The only headings needed are "2008" etc., a subheadings for every item is not necessary.
Your suggestion to "find the latest SLRR information on the history 2010 page" makes absolutely no sense.
Also, there is no such thing as a "history beyond the present." Up to date information should be placed on the SLRR main topic page only.
Would you like to change it back to the way it was? or shall I...
Jer Straaf 10:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• For editing purposes it's much easier to use sub-headings. So I suggest to keep those. Seeing as the documents will be added to continually it probably wise to split them at some point in time anyway. I could reverse the order of the document... but to be honest that makes no sense to me. You start a book by reading from chapter 1. Not from the last chapter backward. Lets leave the pages as they are arranged now. --Stryker J 10:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not presented any valid reasoning in support of this horrible change and you have obviously not understood my sound reasoning for returning the history to a single page format.
I will contact Torley Linden immediately, he can adjudicate this matter.
Jer Straaf 11:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reasoning in a nutshell again then: 1). The wiki editor if self gives a warning when a page gets larger then 32K. 2). The subheadings are needed for ease of editing and the index. 3). Pages are written and read from the top down and clearly marked they continue on other pages. 4) I have immediately accommodated your 'concern' by adding additional links in the description of both pages.
  
• I agree with the fact there is no "history beyond the present". So you may want to come up with a better term for that. The pages are now fully linked and reverting it will cause links on other pages to fail. And just because you want something does not mean that I automatically have to agree. I still think its best to leave the pages as they are arranged now. --Stryker J 11:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the entire article for conciseness, eliminating extraneous information and creating a place in "Other Railway Initiatives" for the VRC-specific information as Torley has suggested.
The article looks really good now and contains all of the public information about the SLRR.
I spent a lot of time on this initially and have now spent even more making the article readable and more objective. Do not undo any of these changes without consulting Torley Linden.
The "history of the future" page that Stryker Jenkins created can now be easily placed back into its proper place on the SLRR History page.
Jer Straaf 00:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

jer Straaf had me look at this streamlined version and it looks really good. The old version was too long and too confusing plus it was not objective. All of the important information is still there. I contributed information to the original article and I am the founder of the largest railroad group in Second Life, the SLRR Rail Group. I have railroad stations all over the SLRR and agree that it is not right to list them under the topic "Second Life Railroad." Moundsa and Stryker need to stop pretending that they own the SLRR in world and that they own this wiki topic, we ALL own it. Jer has done more for personal railroading and "saving the rails" than almost anybody, his input should be respected. To Stryker, I saw the games you played with the edits, do not remove this message without my permission! DOUGIE Flossberg 04:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, its unclear to me why large portions with good factual information have been removed. I agree with Torley, could you and Jer detail the reasons behind the changes, in particular the larger deletes?Vaughn Deluca 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Vaughn, Which parts do you agree with if you only "tend" to disagree? Please re-read my comments, it's all there. Your VRC group's leadership has begun putting your VRC advertisements back into the article already and have deleted the category I made for the VRC in "Other Railway Initiatives" in opposition to what Torley suggested. This is a citizenship issue with your VRC, yet again. ONLY official SLRR stations should be listed here. VRC railroad stations are no more official than any other resident-built stations, and there are hundreds of resident-built stations along the SLRR. Jer Straaf 23:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity is paramount surely? Why are some resident locations so shamelessly plugged? This page should not be used in such a manner I would say, unless maybe someone wants to canvas all neighbours along the SLRR...slrr-yellowpages.com is available to anyone who wishes to set something up along those lines. I can see the logic in maybe mentioning landmarks such as the hobo area, crossings, that kind of thing, but I also feel that such detail would be better elsewhere and this page is best when concise, clear and a starting point for further information and investigation. Use of all of the protected routes is mostly about peoples need to explore and find things for themselves, the page should be a good starting point, not a good reason to minimise the client, grab a drink, and put your reading glasses on. May I quote 5 simple words which may also help? What, where, when, how, why.Yevad Doobie 03:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this gets us nowhere, much more has been removed than justified. I will compile a detailed list of facts that are in my view on topic, so we know what we are talking about .Vaughn Deluca 04:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I edited for brevity and did not change any essential informational content in the process. But Stryker has been busy again:
- I count known train sales and correctly say that "thousands of residents have personal trains" and for some reason Stryker edits it and says "very many trains." Why?
- Standards have existed for several years and Stryker incorrectly states that standard-setting began at a meeting last month. I take it out, he puts it back in.
- I take out the VRC's blatant advertising, Stryker puts it back in. I make a place for the VRC in "Other Railway Initiatives" and Stryker deletes it.
- The "SLRR logo" is a picture of one of Stryker's products on SLX and is not something you would ever find on the SLRR. Images removed by --Stryker J 10:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Stop editing my comments! Make your own! Jer Straaf 10:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC) These are normal Wiki procedures Jer.--Stryker J 10:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
And his map? It is biased, out-of-date and speculative.
- Stryker keeps manipulating the "Source" sections too, the VRC did not "initially collect" this widely available public information, I have been distributing some of it for years. And who are these "and others associated with other SLRR related groups" to which Stryker refers? My contributions were not made representing any SL group! What is your agenda here? And Michael Linden is only a source for the names of the rail lines? Get real.
Jer Straaf 09:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that Stryker and Jer meet inworld (along with any and all interested parties) to discuss how best to work together on this material. It would seem the only way a meeting could be productive is if a chair was employed. The chair should be someone who has no bias. Do the wiki a favor and consider this suggestion seriously, please. -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reattached the 2010 history text to its proper place.
Stryker, do not use my railroading locations as "points of interest" to justify putting your VRC advertisements into the list of SLRR stations. ONLY official LL stations should appear in the list!
Jer Straaf 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wew, things move fast here, i was am only half way trough my list of proposed edits. What happend to talking in the talk page to reach consensus?  :( I don't think a chair is needed , just common sense and good manners should do. I will complete my suggested changes - with justification for each modification, and put that up for discussion. Vaughn Deluca 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I change my mind. So much of the page has been removed that the task of restoring it -given the current atmosphere- is daunting. I prefer to spend my time in more productive ways. Vaughn Deluca 21:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Vaughn, I don't buy that. I think you looked at it and realized that all I removed was a bunch of extraneous detail that puffed up the article. Storming off in a huff is a way of "saving face" for your VRC, you know it was all just poorly-written cut/paste fluff. I was hoping you would help us. JMHO...Jer Straaf 22:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is supposed to be fun to do this, that was not the case anymore, and your comment above is a prefect illustration of that. Vaughn Deluca 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake...

@Jer It isn't clear to me which specific passages you find objectionable. I won't assume and I don't have the luxury of time to look through all edits, so please quote and summarize with specific actionables. Otherwise, others have a hard time understanding what you mean.

Since there's a lot going on here, it may help to start fresh knowing that: alternate views can be presented within an article from each perspective. For example, "While Bob saw the burgeoning steampunk movement as important to e-commerce, Alice disagreed because it hurt her dieselpunk fashions. Complicating the matter further, John saw an opportunity to merge the two."

The point is, attribute these perspectives, and make it clear they aren't universally shared. Similar to how Wikipedia has both "positive", "negative", and "mixed" reviews cited in the "critical response" of movie reviews — Inception is a particularly weighty example.

- on 2010-09-01 @ 5:29 AM Pacific

• retracting older comments --Stryker J 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)